Health-related quality of life in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with controlled or uncontrolled anticoagulation status.

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of evidence regarding Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients undergoing oral anticoagulation therapy. Our objective was to describe HRQoL in NVAF patients on oral anticoagulation, focusing on uncontrolled patients on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) versus controlled patients on VKAs or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), in a real-world setting. Additionally, we assessed the clinical characteristics of patients with uncontrolled anticoagulation. METHODS: An observational, multicentre, and cross-sectional study, enrolling 38 Spanish Hospitals' Internal Medicine Departments. HRQoL was assessed using the validated Spanish version of the Sawicki questionnaire. High self-perceived HRQoL was indicated by high scores in the general treatment satisfaction and self-efficacy dimensions, and by low scores in the strained social network, daily hassles and distress dimensions. RESULTS: Five hundred and one patients were included for assessment. Mean scores ± SD were closer to a high perceived HRQoL in controlled than uncontrolled patients for the five dimensions of the questionnaire: 4.9 ± 1.0 versus 3.6 ± 1.3 for general treatment satisfaction; 4.3 ± 1.0 versus 3.6 ± 1.0 for self-efficacy, 3.1 ± 0.9 versus 3.9 ± 1.1 for strained social network, 2.1 ± 0.8 versus 3.0 ± 1.0 for daily hassles and 1.8 ± 0.9 versus 2.6 ± 1.2 for distress. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL in patients with controlled anticoagulant status treated with NOACs or VKAs was better than in patients with uncontrolled anticoagulant status. This seems to indicate that anticoagulation control status influences perception of HRQoL, highlighting the importance of its evaluation when assessing HRQoL in NVAF patients.

Patients' perceptions with dabigatran in patients with atrial fibrillation previously treated with vitamin K antagonists.

Aim: To analyze the perception of anticoagulation with dabigatran in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation previously treated with vitamin K antagonists over a 6-month period. Materials & methods: This is a prospective, noninterventional, noncontrolled, multicenter study. To assess patients' perceptions, PACT-Q2 questionnaire was completed. Results: Six hundred and fifty nine patients (73.1 ± 9.4 years, CHA2DS2-VASc 3.6 ± 1.6) were included. At baseline, the convenience and satisfaction scores were 60.9 ± 24.9 and 49.9 ± 17.7, respectively. The scores significantly increased along the study. Convenience score was higher in males and in patients with low-moderate thromboembolic risk. Satisfaction score was higher in females. Only 8.0% of patients discontinued dabigatran (3.7% due to side effects). Conclusion: Convenience and satisfaction scores for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients treated with dabigatran at 6 months were significantly better than with previous vitamin K antagonists.

Profile of Patients Diagnosed With Acute Venous Thromboembolism in Routine Clinical Practice: The RE-COVERY DVT/PE™ Study.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been established in randomized controlled trials, but limited data are available on their use in clinical practice across geographical regions. METHODS: In the international RE-COVERY DVT/PE observational study (enrollment January 2016 to May 2017), we sought to characterize the patient population and describe the prescribed anticoagulant. Patient characteristics and anticoagulants administered after objective diagnosis of VTE were recorded at the baseline visit and again at hospital discharge or at 14 days after the diagnosis, whichever was later. RESULTS: A total of 6095 patients were included, 50.2% were male, and the mean age was 61.5 years. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35%), diabetes mellitus (11%), cancer (11%), prior VTE(11%), and trauma/surgery (7%). Overall, 77% of patients received oral anticoagulants, with 54% on NOACs and 23% on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs); 20% received parenteral anticoagulation only. NOACs comprised about 60% of anticoagulant treatment in Europe and Asia but substantially less in Latin America (29%) and the Middle East (21%). For NOAC therapies, the distribution (as a percentage of the total cohort) was rivaroxaban 25.6%, dabigatran 15.5%, apixaban 11.3%, and edoxaban 1.7%. Treatment with NOACs was less frequent in patients who had cancer, chronic renal disease, heart failure, or stroke. CONCLUSIONS: These findings enhance our understanding of baseline characteristics and the initial management of patients with VTE in routine practice.

Gastrointestinal safety of triflusal solution in healthy volunteers: a proof of concept endoscopic study.

PURPOSE: Triflusal is an antiplatelet agent that irreversibly acetylates cyclooxygenase isoform 1 (COX-1) and therefore inhibits thromboxane biosynthesis. It was initially marketed as capsules containing 300 mg of active substance. In 2006 a new 600 mg (10 ml) oral solution form of triflusal was authorized in Spain. The primary aim of this study was to compare the gastrointestinal safety of the new triflusal oral solution with triflusal capsules in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Sixty healthy subjects were randomly assigned, in a 2.5:2.5: 1 ratio, into one of three groups, with 25 subjects receiving one bottle of triflusal oral solution (600 mg) daily, 25 subjects receiving two triflusal capsules (600 mg) once daily, and ten subjects receiving two placebo capsules once daily, respectively, during 7 consecutive days. Gastroscopy was performed at baseline before the administration of study drugs and after 4-8 h of the last dose of study drugs. Effects on the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum were measured in accordance with a modified Lanza scale. RESULTS: No differences between groups were detected at baseline. After treatment, median global scores in the placebo, triflusal solution, and triflusal capsules groups were, respectively, 0, 1, and 3 (p = 0.003 for comparison between placebo and triflusal capsules and p = 0.042 for comparison between triflusal solution and triflusal capsules). There were no significant differences between the scores on the triflusal solution and placebo groups. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In healthy subjects, triflusal solution induced less endoscopically apparent gastrointestinal mucosal damage than triflusal capsules and did not induce more damage than the placebo in healthy volunteers.

Rupatadine does not potentiate the CNS depressant effects of lorazepam: randomized, double-blind, crossover, repeated dose, placebo-controlled study.

AIM: The main objective was to assess whether benzodiazepine intake when rupatadine plasma concentrations were at steady-state would increase the CNS depressant effects. Rupatadine is a new H(1)-antihistamine which also inhibits platelet activating factor (PAF) release and has been shown to be clinically effective at doses of 10 mg. METHODS: Sixteen healthy young volunteers took part in a crossover, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial comprising two experimental periods (repeated administration for 7 days of rupatadine 10 mg or placebo as single oral daily doses, separated by a washout of 14 days). On days 5 and 7, according to a fully balanced design, a single oral dose of lorazepam 2 mg or placebo was added. CNS effects were evaluated on these days by seven objective tests of psychomotor performance and eight subjective visual analogue scales (VAS) at pre-dose and several times after drug intake. Four treatment conditions were evaluated: placebo, rupatadine 10 mg, lorazepam 2 mg and rupatadine 10 mg + lorazepam 2 mg. RESULTS: Significant CNS effects, either impairment of psychomotor performance or subjective sedation, were observed when lorazepam was administered, either alone or in combination with steady state concentrations of rupatadine. No significant differences were found between these two conditions. In addition, rupatadine was not different from placebo. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Repeated doses of rupatadine (10 mg orally) did not enhance the CNS depressant effects of lorazepam (2 mg orally, single dose) either in objective psychomotor tasks or in subjective evaluations.

Safety of rupatadine administered over a period of 1 year in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis: a multicentre, open-label study in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Rupatadine (Rupafin), a novel antihistamine approved recently in Europe for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria in patients aged>or=12 years, has been shown to be highly efficacious, and as safe and well tolerated as other commonly employed antihistamines in the treatment of allergic disease. There are, however, few data on the long-term safety of these antihistamines derived in accordance with the clinical safety recommendations of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) and the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Guideline. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and tolerability of treatment with rupatadine 10 mg/day for 12 months in subjects with persistent AR (PER). METHODS: A multicentre, open-label, phase IV study in patients recruited from 33 centres in Spain, from September 2002 to November 2005. The study enrolled 324 male and female patients (aged 12-70 years) with a medical history of PER for at least 12 months and a documented positive skin-prick test to an appropriate allergen. On 4 of the 7 days prior to start of treatment, the patients were required to have a minimum total nasal symptom score (TNSS [for sneezing, rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction/congestion and nasal itching]) of >or=5. Of the 324 eligible patients starting treatment, 120 needed to be treated for more than 6 months and were followed up until the end of 12 months. All patients received rupatadine 10 mg/day and were allowed to continue their normal concomitant medication for all conditions, other than rhinitis, for up to 6 or 12 months. Safety was assessed by means of adverse events (AEs) reported by patients or detected by investigators, scheduled centralized ECG with special attention to Bazzet corrected QT interval (QTcB) and standard laboratory investigations. RESULTS: Assessment of treatment compliance rates indicated 90% and 83% of patients to be compliant during the 1-6 months and 1-12 months treatment periods, respectively, with compliance rates>80% being associated with the majority of the study population reporting at least one AE. Overall, 74.1% and 65.8% of the patients reported at least one AE during the 1-6 months and 1-12 months treatment periods, respectively, compared with 20.4% and 10.8% of patients reporting at least one treatment-related AE during these periods. Disorders of the nervous system and respiratory thoracic and mediastinal system, in particular headache, somnolence and catarrh, were the three most common AEs reported by >5% of the patients during both treatment periods. Detailed ECG assessments demonstrated no clinically relevant abnormal ECG findings, nor any QTcB increases >60 msec or QTcB values>470 msec for any patient at any time during treatment. Serious AEs were reported in seven patients, of whom six were considered as unlikely to be related to rupatadine treatment, whereas one involving increased blood enzyme levels was considered as possibly related to rupatadine treatment. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the good long-term safety and tolerability of rupatadine at the therapeutic dose of 10 mg/day in patients with PER.

Pharmacokinetic and safety profile of rupatadine when coadministered with azithromycin at steady-state levels: a randomized, open-label, two-way, crossover, Phase I study.

BACKGROUND: Rupatadine is an oral active antihistamine and platelet-activating factor antagonist indicated for the management of allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria in Europe. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the effect of the concomitant administration of azithromycin and rupatadine on the pharmacokinetics of rupatadine and its metabolites after repeated doses. METHODS: This was a multiple-dose, randomized, open-label, 2-way, crossover, Phase I study in which healthy male and female volunteers received rupatadine 10 mg once a day for 6 days either alone or with azithromycin 500 mg on day 2 and 250 mg from day 3 to day 6. Treatments were administered after a fasting period of 10 hours with 240 mL of water, and fasting conditions were kept until 3 hours postmedication. A washout period of at least 21 days between the 2 active periods was observed. Blood samples were collected and plasma concentrations of rupatadine and its metabolites desloratadine and 3-hydroxydesloratadine were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Tolerability was based on the recording of adverse events (AEs), physical examination, electrocardiograms, and laboratory screen controls at baseline and the final study visit. RESULTS: Twenty-four healthy volunteers (15 males, 9 females; mean [SD] age, 25.67 [5.58] years; weight, 65.96 [8.57] kg) completed the study. Except for maximum observed concentration during a dosing interval (Cmax,ss) of 3-hydroxydesloratadine, on average, there were no statistically significant differences in mean plasma concentrations in any of the main pharmacokinetic parameters of rupatadine, desloratadine, and 3-hydroxydesloratadine when administered in combination with azithromycin or alone. The Cmax,ss ratio was 111 (90% CI, 91-136) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve during a dosing interval (AUC0-tau) ratio had a value of 103 (90% CI, 91-117). The corresponding ratios for the rupatadine metabolites were 109 (90% CI, 100-120) for Cmax,ss and 103 (90% CI, 96-110) for AUC0-tau for desloratadine and 109 (90% CI, 103-115) for Cmax,ss and 104 (90% CI, 100-108) for AUC0-tau for 3-hydroxydesloratadine. Point estimates for Cmax,ss ratios using paired data were 111% for rupatadine, 109% for desloratadine, and 109% for 3-hydroxydesloratadine. The 90% CIs were included in the interval 80% to 125% for desloratadine and 3-hydroxydesloratadine, whereas 90% CI for rupatadine was shifted to the right of the interval used for comparing bioavailability of the drugs. A total of 5 subjects reported 9 AEs; 5 of these were thought to be related to the drug administration and all were categorized as mild or moderate. The reported AEs were somnolence (1/24 in the rupatadine group and 1/24 in the rupatadine plus azithromycin group), diarrhea (1/24 in the rupatadine plus azithromycin group), and gastric discomfort (2/24 in the rupatadine plus azithromycin group). Four AEs were considered not to be related (2 episodes of headache, 1 anemia, 1 cheilitis). All were resolved spontaneously. No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study in these healthy volunteers found no significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters other than Cmax,ss of 3-hydroxydesloratadine between rupatadine 10 mg administered alone or with azithromycin 500 mg on day 2 and 250 mg from day 3 to day 6. The administration of rupatadine compared with rupatadine plus azithromycin met the regulatory definition of bioequivalence in terms of exposure and rate parameters; however, Cmax,ss of rupatadine was outside the conventional confidence interval.